4 ms·

> I think it should also be a requirement to show a state or federal ID before you can cast your vote. I'm always floored when people try to defend voting witho

> I think it should also be a requirement to show a state or federal ID before you can cast your vote. I'm always floored when people try to defend voting without requiring any kind of identity verification. In Puerto Rico you're required to register ahead of time for a voter ID and you must present it in order to vote. If Puerto Rico, which is drastically poorer than all 50 states, can pull this off without it being considered a problem then I find it really hard to take seriously the claims of people saying it sets too high of a bar. The problem is that the state and federal ID system is so fucked up that it disenfranchises voters. Until that system is fixed, you can't use it for voting. This issue then becomes a partisan one because voter fraud is so rare that it doesn't seem to need any additions, so strong pushes for voter ID laws (which almost never address the issue of the ID systems) are targeting those who are less likely to have ID, which tends to be concentrated with voting for one party. If anyone actually cared about voter ID laws for non-partisan reasons, it would go hand in hand with a national ID system.

stouset 8y ago
The same proponents of stronger voter ID laws are also the same people who are incomprehensibly paranoid about the notion of a national ID system.
- Mountain_Skies 8y ago
  Is that really so weird? All elections are essentially state elections. Even the presidency is really a state level election due to the way the electoral college works. There is no nationwide election so why would there need to be a nationwide ID system for voting? I'm in favor of requiring a photo id to vote but am well aware of the problems some have in obtaining such an id. That's the problem that needs to be corrected. It does need to be corrected first and we shouldn't just shrug our shoulders and go back to things the way they've been. Everyone should have easy access to a state endorsed identification card. It's an essential function of government and interaction with citizens. As such it should be funded by general taxation rather than a user fee. A state issued identification card is used for so much more than just authorization for driving a vehicle. Why is it in the hands of the DMV/DDS in most if not every state? Even the non-driver identification cards issued to those who don't drive are usually still issued by DMV/DDS. It's an odd system that wouldn't be designed as it is now if we were designing from scratch but we're use to it because that's how it evolved over time.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    Indeed. I hold a similar dual position and it is very easy to rationalise. Government controls the police and military, and so has the capability to threaten me in a way that pretty much nothing else does. I want the process of controlling the government to be transparent, difficult and controlled - hence voters should be identified on voting. I want the government's power to be controlled - hence I don't want them to have a database where they can quickly and easily match bits of my data up. There tension between those two positions is of little practical importance. I'm not worried that they can link my name and address, I'm worried about a sudden outbreak of majority-vs-miniority where someone I really don't like gets in to power and links, I dunno, tax records-name-address, racial-history-name-address , travel-history-bank-account-photo or somesuch. I don't think it is practically feasible to target someone off the information in a voter role. The real issue to me is that there isn't much organisation against governments laying the groundwork, and in practice opposing an ID card doesn't mean anything. In Australia we basically have all the infrastructure for a national ID card except the formalisation of a little piece of plastic.
    - 8note 8y ago
      couldn't someone in power just buy that link information from someone like Equifax?
  - int_19h 8y ago
    > All elections are essentially state elections. Even the presidency is really a state level election due to the way the electoral college works. There is no nationwide election so why would there need to be a nationwide ID system for voting? The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to regulate how congressional elections are held - Article 1, Section 4 - precisely because those elections are national in practice (in terms of how their outcome translates to policy). Congress already uses the power to, for example, set the date of the elections to be the same across the country, or to enforce a uniform electoral system (single-member districts). That same power could be similarly used to enact uniform voter ID requirements, and one could argue that it is the only way to ensure that states aren't abusing the system to benefit whatever party controls them. And once you go there, it makes sense to tie those requirements to a national ID. States can use their own IDs for state elections. But I don't see why they should get away with arbitrary restrictions (or arbitrary lack of restrictions) for elections that directly apply outside of their borders. They're not sovereign countries, and federal elections are one of the issues on which federal-level regulation is clearly both reasonable and constitutional.
- sixothree 8y ago
  And are also the same ones who do not want you to be able to register to vote at the same place you procure those IDs.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  There are enough valid id systems in place there's no need for much more, and they are not totally messed up. Showing an ID to vote is utterly common sense. Instead of all those voter registration campaigns that everyone spends money on ... they should be spending on 'just getting ID'. And then maybe there should be no need to even register in many cases, if you're ID w/address is good enough. Two birds.
int_19h 8y ago
I wholeheartedly agree. Which is why whoever will be the first one to propose a no-cost, easy-to-get national ID (could be issued via post offices, since those already have pervasive geographic coverage) combined with voter ID, pitching it all as "a real investment into election security while protecting the right of all citizens to vote" or some such, would likely win this political fight.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Unfortunately this has a lot of opposition behind it from republican voters who believe in kooky mark of the beast theories, and concerns about federal government surveillance. You can be completely certain they would fan those flames hard if a proposal like this ever saw the light of day.
  - krapp 8y ago
    The kooky mark of the beast people heavily oppose everything from RFID to social security cards... the real mainstream opposition would be from gun owners and the NRA.
  - tracker1 8y ago
    Umn, it seems to me that most of the opposition to requiring ID for voting (just a state issued ID) are liberals talking about disenfranchising the poor. Most of the poor already have ID, and beyond a few of the horror stories some seem to have getting ID, it's still not a bad idea. In the end, you have to register to vote, and in most states you do so with the same agencies that make Identifications. Requiring an ID card to get a voter ID, or having it as part of your driver's license or state id isn't a horrible idea. There's no reason for it to be a "federally issued id".
    - int_19h 8y ago
      The reason for it to be a federally issued ID is because it has to be 1) free to obtain, for this scheme to not amount to a de facto poll tax, and 2) easy to obtain, to avoid selective suppression of constituencies by e.g. removing offices that issue them in certain areas. States have been proven by experience to be willing to do both. AFAIK, all states that have implemented some form of voter ID to date collect fees for issuance of any eligible IDs. And there are numerous cases of states closing or moving DMVs and similar agencies, or mucking around with vote schedule, to deliberately suppress some voters (a recent example which is particularly glaring because the state explicitly admitted its motivation: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/). Thus, the only way to ensure that voter ID would not be discriminatory in practice, is to have feds run the whole thing, in a way that guarantees non-discrimination - which means it has to be free, and it has to be easy to get. If you truly believe that voter ID is necessary for election security, then this is the compromise deal that you'll have to accept for us liberals to be onboard with that (keep in mind that most of us don't believe that there's any real issue to be solved by having voter ID, so any such support would be mainly symbolic in nature - and you'll have show good faith in courting it).
fromthestart 8y ago
>The problem is that the state and federal ID system is so fucked up that it disenfranchises voters. Until that system is fixed, you can't use it for voting. I really think this is a giant myth. You're expecting me to believe that these minorities are living such horrid, opressed lives that they slave away every single day, and can't find a friend with a ride, or band together to make a group trip to get registered one day out of the year? Yeah, I've heard it, registration centers are closing in minority neighborhoods; but that doesn't mean that these people don't have places to register/get an ID within an hour or two by bus. The problem is ignorance and apathy, not voter suppression. Frankly, if someone is so uninterested/unwilling to participate in society that they can't be fucked to spend even 1 day out of the year to get a license, then they don't have any business making any decisions regarding out collective government.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  No matter how you slice it, it amounts to “the poorest people can’t vote”. Maybe you don’t even have bus fare. Maybe your car can’t make it 90 miles to the nearest DMV. Also you’re really dismissing the fact that some people literally work all the hours the DMV is open. And when those people have their one or two days off, there’s other crap they have to get done. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have voter ID... I’m just saying you’re being disingenuous by saying it doesn’t disenfranchise any voters.
  - tracker1 8y ago
    If you're so bad off that you can't make it to a place to get an Id, then you're probably too poor to make it to a place to register to vote too. There's no reason that state issued Ids can't be done via mobile platforms. Also, I'm not saying it doesn't disenfranchise voters, but the numbers are so incredibly small that it's statistically insignificant.
    - adjkant 8y ago
      .5% of the entire US population is homeless, most of which are practically prohibited by law to obtain a valid ID. That's not statistically insignificant at all. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/05/15/without-id-homeless-trapped-in-vicious-cycle https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...

stouset 8y ago

The same proponents of stronger voter ID laws are also the same people who are incomprehensibly paranoid about the notion of a national ID system.

Mountain_Skies 8y ago
Is that really so weird? All elections are essentially state elections. Even the presidency is really a state level election due to the way the electoral college works. There is no nationwide election so why would there need to be a nationwide ID system for voting? I'm in favor of requiring a photo id to vote but am well aware of the problems some have in obtaining such an id. That's the problem that needs to be corrected. It does need to be corrected first and we shouldn't just shrug our shoulders and go back to things the way they've been. Everyone should have easy access to a state endorsed identification card. It's an essential function of government and interaction with citizens. As such it should be funded by general taxation rather than a user fee. A state issued identification card is used for so much more than just authorization for driving a vehicle. Why is it in the hands of the DMV/DDS in most if not every state? Even the non-driver identification cards issued to those who don't drive are usually still issued by DMV/DDS. It's an odd system that wouldn't be designed as it is now if we were designing from scratch but we're use to it because that's how it evolved over time.
- roenxi 8y ago
  Indeed. I hold a similar dual position and it is very easy to rationalise. Government controls the police and military, and so has the capability to threaten me in a way that pretty much nothing else does. I want the process of controlling the government to be transparent, difficult and controlled - hence voters should be identified on voting. I want the government's power to be controlled - hence I don't want them to have a database where they can quickly and easily match bits of my data up. There tension between those two positions is of little practical importance. I'm not worried that they can link my name and address, I'm worried about a sudden outbreak of majority-vs-miniority where someone I really don't like gets in to power and links, I dunno, tax records-name-address, racial-history-name-address , travel-history-bank-account-photo or somesuch. I don't think it is practically feasible to target someone off the information in a voter role. The real issue to me is that there isn't much organisation against governments laying the groundwork, and in practice opposing an ID card doesn't mean anything. In Australia we basically have all the infrastructure for a national ID card except the formalisation of a little piece of plastic.
  - 8note 8y ago
    couldn't someone in power just buy that link information from someone like Equifax?
- int_19h 8y ago
  > All elections are essentially state elections. Even the presidency is really a state level election due to the way the electoral college works. There is no nationwide election so why would there need to be a nationwide ID system for voting? The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to regulate how congressional elections are held - Article 1, Section 4 - precisely because those elections are national in practice (in terms of how their outcome translates to policy). Congress already uses the power to, for example, set the date of the elections to be the same across the country, or to enforce a uniform electoral system (single-member districts). That same power could be similarly used to enact uniform voter ID requirements, and one could argue that it is the only way to ensure that states aren't abusing the system to benefit whatever party controls them. And once you go there, it makes sense to tie those requirements to a national ID. States can use their own IDs for state elections. But I don't see why they should get away with arbitrary restrictions (or arbitrary lack of restrictions) for elections that directly apply outside of their borders. They're not sovereign countries, and federal elections are one of the issues on which federal-level regulation is clearly both reasonable and constitutional.
sixothree 8y ago
And are also the same ones who do not want you to be able to register to vote at the same place you procure those IDs.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
There are enough valid id systems in place there's no need for much more, and they are not totally messed up. Showing an ID to vote is utterly common sense. Instead of all those voter registration campaigns that everyone spends money on ... they should be spending on 'just getting ID'. And then maybe there should be no need to even register in many cases, if you're ID w/address is good enough. Two birds.

int_19h 8y ago

I wholeheartedly agree. Which is why whoever will be the first one to propose a no-cost, easy-to-get national ID (could be issued via post offices, since those already have pervasive geographic coverage) combined with voter ID, pitching it all as "a real investment into election security while protecting the right of all citizens to vote" or some such, would likely win this political fight.

throwaway2048 8y ago
Unfortunately this has a lot of opposition behind it from republican voters who believe in kooky mark of the beast theories, and concerns about federal government surveillance. You can be completely certain they would fan those flames hard if a proposal like this ever saw the light of day.
- krapp 8y ago
  The kooky mark of the beast people heavily oppose everything from RFID to social security cards... the real mainstream opposition would be from gun owners and the NRA.
- tracker1 8y ago
  Umn, it seems to me that most of the opposition to requiring ID for voting (just a state issued ID) are liberals talking about disenfranchising the poor. Most of the poor already have ID, and beyond a few of the horror stories some seem to have getting ID, it's still not a bad idea. In the end, you have to register to vote, and in most states you do so with the same agencies that make Identifications. Requiring an ID card to get a voter ID, or having it as part of your driver's license or state id isn't a horrible idea. There's no reason for it to be a "federally issued id".
  - int_19h 8y ago
    The reason for it to be a federally issued ID is because it has to be 1) free to obtain, for this scheme to not amount to a de facto poll tax, and 2) easy to obtain, to avoid selective suppression of constituencies by e.g. removing offices that issue them in certain areas. States have been proven by experience to be willing to do both. AFAIK, all states that have implemented some form of voter ID to date collect fees for issuance of any eligible IDs. And there are numerous cases of states closing or moving DMVs and similar agencies, or mucking around with vote schedule, to deliberately suppress some voters (a recent example which is particularly glaring because the state explicitly admitted its motivation: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/). Thus, the only way to ensure that voter ID would not be discriminatory in practice, is to have feds run the whole thing, in a way that guarantees non-discrimination - which means it has to be free, and it has to be easy to get. If you truly believe that voter ID is necessary for election security, then this is the compromise deal that you'll have to accept for us liberals to be onboard with that (keep in mind that most of us don't believe that there's any real issue to be solved by having voter ID, so any such support would be mainly symbolic in nature - and you'll have show good faith in courting it).

fromthestart 8y ago

>The problem is that the state and federal ID system is so fucked up that it disenfranchises voters. Until that system is fixed, you can't use it for voting. I really think this is a giant myth. You're expecting me to believe that these minorities are living such horrid, opressed lives that they slave away every single day, and can't find a friend with a ride, or band together to make a group trip to get registered one day out of the year? Yeah, I've heard it, registration centers are closing in minority neighborhoods; but that doesn't mean that these people don't have places to register/get an ID within an hour or two by bus. The problem is ignorance and apathy, not voter suppression. Frankly, if someone is so uninterested/unwilling to participate in society that they can't be fucked to spend even 1 day out of the year to get a license, then they don't have any business making any decisions regarding out collective government.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
No matter how you slice it, it amounts to “the poorest people can’t vote”. Maybe you don’t even have bus fare. Maybe your car can’t make it 90 miles to the nearest DMV. Also you’re really dismissing the fact that some people literally work all the hours the DMV is open. And when those people have their one or two days off, there’s other crap they have to get done. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have voter ID... I’m just saying you’re being disingenuous by saying it doesn’t disenfranchise any voters.
- tracker1 8y ago
  If you're so bad off that you can't make it to a place to get an Id, then you're probably too poor to make it to a place to register to vote too. There's no reason that state issued Ids can't be done via mobile platforms. Also, I'm not saying it doesn't disenfranchise voters, but the numbers are so incredibly small that it's statistically insignificant.
  - adjkant 8y ago
    .5% of the entire US population is homeless, most of which are practically prohibited by law to obtain a valid ID. That's not statistically insignificant at all. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/05/15/without-id-homeless-trapped-in-vicious-cycle https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...